Central themes in BiBliCal theology - Baker Publishing Group

mapping unity in diversity

edited by scott J. hafemannand Paul r. house

Central themes inBiBliCal theology

Ktitle pages.indd 3 2/16/07 7:37:49 AM

Scott J. Hafeman and Paul R. House, eds.,Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity,

Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, © 2007. Used by permission.

© 2007 by Inter-Varsity Press

Published in North America by Baker Academica division of Baker Publishing GroupP.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287www.bakeracademic.com

Published in Great Britain by Apollos, an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC

ISBN 10: 0-8010-3423-XISBN 978-0-8010-3423-7

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

title pages.indd 4 2/16/07 7:37:49 AM



To

Lindsey Hafemann

and

Martin Spence

M631 - CENTRAL PRELIMS.qxd 8/12/06 10:00 AM Page 5 Gary Gary's G4:Users:Gary:Public:Gary's






CONTENTS

Contributors Abbreviations Introduction

. The Covenant Relationship Scott J. Hafemann

. The Commands of God Thomas R. Schreiner

. The Atonement Frank S. Thielman

. The Servant of the Lord Stephen G. Dempster

. The Day of the Lord Paul R. House

. The People of God Elmer A. Martens

. The History of Redemption Roy E. Ciampa

Index of Scripture references

Index of ancient sources

M631 - CENTRAL PRELIMS.qxd 21/12/06 2:46 PM Page 7 Gary Gary's G4:Users:Gary:Public:Gary's






CONTRIBUTORS

Roy E. Ciampa is Director of the ThM Program in Biblical Studies andAssociate Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell TheologicalSeminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts, USA.

Stephen G. Dempster is Professor of Religious Studies at Atlantic BaptistUniversity, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Scott J. Hafemann is Mary F. Rockefeller Distinguished Professor of NewTestament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton,Massachusetts, USA.

Paul R. House is Associate Dean and Professor of Divinity at BeesonDivinity School, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Elmer A. Martens is President Emeritus and Professor of OldTestament Emeritus at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, Fresno,California, USA.




Thomas R. Schreiner is Associate Dean (Scripture and InterpretationFaculty) and Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The SouthernBaptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

Frank S. Thielman is Presbyterian Professor of Divinity at Beeson DivinitySchool, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.




AB Anchor BibleCommentary

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AOTC Apollos Old TestamentCommentary

BA Biblical Archaeologist

BBET Beiträge zur biblischenExegese und Theologie

BBR Bulletin for Biblical

Research

BCBC Believers Church BibleCommentary

BDAG W. Bauer, F. W. Dander,W. F. Arndt and F. W.Gingrich, Greek–English

Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature, rded. (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, )

BEvTh Beiträge zur evangelis-chen Theologie

BECNT Baker ExegeticalCommentary on theNew Testament

BHS Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia

BJRL Bulletin of the John

Rylands University

Library of Manchester

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BSL Biblical Studies LibraryBTCL Biblical and

Theological ClassicsLibrary

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CSIR Cambridge Studies inIdeology and Religion

DOTP Dictionary of the Old

Testament: Pentateuch

ABBREVIATIONS




DPL Dictionary of Paul and

His Letters

EKK Evangelisch-katholischer

Kommentar zum Neuen

Testament

ET Evangelische Theologie

ExpT Expository Times

FCI Foundations ofContemporaryInterpretation

FOTL Forms of the OldTestament Literature

FRLANT Forschungen zurReligion und Literaturdes Alten und NeuenTestaments

HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old

Testament

Herm HermeneiaHNTC Harper New Testament

CommentaryHSMS Harvard Semitic

Monograph SeriesIBC Interpretation: A Bible

Commentary forTeaching and Preaching

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

Int Interpretation

ISBE International Standard

Bible Encylopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical

Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society

JPSTC Jewish PublicationSociety TorahCommentary

JSNT Journal for the Study of the

New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the

New Testament

Supplement SeriesJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the

Old Testament

Supplement SeriesJTS Journal of Theological

Studies

LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scottand H. S. Jones, A

Greek–English Lexicon,th ed. with revisedsupplement (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress, )

Septuagint Masoretic TextNAC New American

Commentary New American

Standard BibleNCB New Century BibleNDBT New Dictionary of

Biblical Theology

NIB New Interpreter’s BibleNICNT The New International

Commentary on theNew Testament

NICOT The New InternationalCommentary on theOld Testament

NIDOTTE The New International

Dictionary of Old

Testament Theology and

Exegesis

NIGTC New InternationalGreek TestamentCommentary

New InternationalVersion




NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Novum Testamentum

Supplements New Revised Standard

VersionNSBT New Studies in Biblical

TheologyNTS New Testament StudiesOBT Overtures to Biblical

TheologyOTL Old Testament LibraryPNTC Pillar New Testament

CommentaryPWCJS Proceedings of the World

Congress of Jewish Studies

RTR The Reformed Theological

Review

Revised StandardVersion

SBL Society of BiblicalLiterature

SBLDS SBL Dissertation SeriesSBLSP SBL Seminar PapersSBLSym SBL SymposiumSBT Studies in Biblical

TheologySHS Scripture and

Hermeneutics Series

SJT Scottish Journal of

Theology

SNTSMS Society for NewTestament StudiesMonograph Series

TDOT Theological Dictionary of

the Old Testament

TNTC Tyndale NewTestamentCommentary

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

UBS United Bible SocietyUBT Understanding Biblical

ThemesVT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Vetus Testamentum

SupplementsWBC Word Biblical

CommentaryWEC Wycliffe Exegetical

CommentaryWTJ Westminster Theological

Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen zum

Neuen Testament

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttesta-

mentliche Wissenschaft

CD Cairo (Genizah text ofthe) Damascus (Document)

QH Hôdayôt (Thanksgiving

Hymns) from QumranCave

QM Milhamâ (War Scroll)

Q QWarScroll

QM+QFlor FlorilegiumQMessAp Messianic Apocalypse

QpPSa QPsalms Peshera

Dead Sea Scrolls




T. Jud Testament of Judah Eph. Letter to the Ephesians

Rom. Letter to the Romans

Smyrn. Letter to the Smyrneans

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Ignatius

P. Mich. Zen. Zenon Papyri,University ofMichigan

Spec. Laws The Special Laws

Papyri Philo




INTRODUCTION

In several biblical scholars met at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinoisto discuss the past and future of biblical theology as a discipline in the academyand in the church. It was an exciting conference, one in which veteran biblicaltheologians such as Peter Stuhlmacher, Daniel Fuller, Graeme Goldsworthy,Elmer Martens and William Dumbrell presented papers, and one in whichyounger scholars participated as well. This conference proved that interest inbiblical theology has not waned in evangelical circles. Indeed, it evidenced avitality that probably surprised even the participants. The collected conferencepapers appeared as Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove:IVP; Leicester: Apollos, ), and the volume was well received.

After that event the editors of the present volume discussed ways to buildupon the stimulating experience of the conference. We agreed that one waywe could do so was to gather a group of like-minded scholars to explore bib-lical themes that contribute to the wholeness of the Bible. We chose peoplewe believed shared our commitment to ‘whole-Bible biblical theology’, a termwe coined for the sort of biblical theology that tries not only to examine thetheology of biblical books, which we applaud, or to use biblical categoriesfor discussing theology, which we also applaud. Rather, we wanted to bringtogether people who saw the need to trace themes and overarching structuralideas through the whole Bible. We wanted to discuss the type of biblical the-ology Elmer Martens defines as

M631 - CENTRAL TEXT.qxd 8/12/06 10:43 AM Page 15 Gary Gary's G4:Users:Gary:Public:Gary's Jo



that approach to Scripture which attempts to see Biblical material holistically and todescribe this wholeness or synthesis in Biblical categories. Biblical theology attemptsto embrace the message of the Bible and to arrive at an intelligible coherence of thewhole despite the great diversity of the parts. Or, put another way: Biblical theologyinvestigates the themes presented in Scripture and defines their inter-relationships.Biblical theology is an attempt to get to the theological heart of the Bible.1

With these basic principles in mind, we selected the contributors to thisvolume and met from to April in Wheaton, Illinois and from to April at Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama to presentour research on seven basic themes in biblical theology and to gain the insightsof our colleagues. Participants chose the theme they wished to address. Thismeant that some significant themes would have to be handled by other expertsat other times, or were deemed to have been discussed effectively by others inthe past. We did not determine the seven most important themes in the Bibleand assign them to one another. Individual interests were allowed latitude, butwe nonetheless found that the themes the participants chose provided a solidsample of key biblical ideas.

We came together as fellow students of the Scriptures to pursue with oneanother the ways in which the Bible presents these great themes across thecanon. We came together not because we all shared the exact same methodol-ogy and opinions. Rather, we came together because we are like-minded whenit comes to pursuing the unifying message of the Bible as it unfolded through-out redemptive history. We came together in the awareness that all our effortsare only preliminary in this world, yet certain that the work we were doingwould help our understanding of the Scriptures in a way that would hopefullyhelp us teach others more effectively. To pursue the unity of the Bible in a circleof scholars unified by their faith, their commitment to the Scriptures, theirdedication to the church and their collegial relationships with one another wasa unique opportunity, and we were grateful to be part of it.

As could be expected from the preceding paragraphs, the contributors tothis volume share at least three core convictions about the unity of the Bible.First, we are convinced that the Bible is a unity because it is the word of God,who is a unified and coherent being, and that a unified biblical theology shouldthus span the entire range of the Scriptures because they are all part of thewritten word of God. Though not a uniform opinion, it is common in our agefor scholars to write of the many competing ‘voices’ and various ‘theologies’

. Elmer A. Martens, ‘Tackling Old Testament Theology’, JETS (), p. .




of the Bible. These essays oppose such trends. They seek to uncover the over-arching theology of the Bible as it develops throughout the canon. The themesthey treat are studied with an eye to their integration into the whole fabric ofthe Bible, their use and reuse by the Bible’s writers, and thus to their develop-ment across the canon.

Each contributor was allowed to pursue the chosen theme across theScriptures in the manner they deemed best, but they all pursued that theme ina way calculated to demonstrate biblical wholeness. Stated simply, the contrib-utors do not pit the Old Testament against the New Testament, for they donot think the biblical writers do so. This pursuit of unity does not reject legit-imate diversity. Indeed, it affirms that effective literature utilizes tension anddiversity to create its unity. Nonetheless, this diversity contributes to the overallunity; it does not negate it. Tragedy, for instance, must have comic elements towork, but such diversity aids the creation of the whole.

Second, we are convinced that to do biblical theology is not merely tosurvey the contents of the Bible. In pursuit of an understanding of God andhis ways, a biblical theology that spans the canon seeks not only to unpack thecontent, but also to establish the conceptual unity of the Scriptures as a wholeas they unfold in human events. Thus this type of biblical theology endeav-ours to reflect synthetically on the history and significance of the relationshipbetween God and his people and God and his world, past, present and future,as delineated in the Scriptures. To achieve this goal, whole-Bible biblical the-ology does not settle for describing the discrete theological emphases of indi-

vidual writers or sources. Nor does it settle for focusing on reconstructing thereligious experiences or historical events behind the text that gave rise to the text.Instead, biblical theology seeks its content and coherence in the final proposi-tions and basic ordering of the Old and New Testaments read in their entirety,in their final form, and in concert with one another. As attempted in thisvolume, biblical theology is the study of God’s self-revelation to human beingsfor the purposes of redemption through the interpretation of the events andexperiences written down in the Scriptures. This sort of biblical theologyaffirms that God’s self-revelation can never be separated from the historicalcontext in which it was given, and that this context is in concert with the liter-ary record in which it is found.

Third, we are convinced that these days doing whole-Bible biblical theol-ogy most likely should be a collaborative effort. The subject matter of biblicaltheology and the literature associated with it have grown too complex and thequestions too many for most of us to pursue the task by working alone. Therewill always be dramatic exceptions to this rule. Still, keeping pace with currentscholarship in Old Testament, New Testament and Theology, to say nothing




of supporting disciplines such as Ancient History, can be a daunting task.Therefore, we met together at the beginning and end of the work and kept incontact in the interim and afterwards. We learned a great deal from oneanother. We found working in dialogue with one another to be fruitful andencouraging. Of course, readers will have to judge the results themselves.

Finally, we present the results of our research with a certain progression inmind. The first essay establishes ‘covenant’ as an integrative concept that spansthe Bible. Scripture takes shape as two interrelated covenants, so this choice isnot astounding, yet it is a vitally important point to make. Based on this intro-ductory principle, we then present essays on God’s commands, God’s meansof atonement, God’s sending of servants and God’s warning about the Dayof the Lord as natural outgrowths of the Bible’s covenantal structure. Thefinal two essays, on God’s people and the history of redemption, are consid-ered summaries of God’s purpose for relating to human beings in a covenan-tal way. Stated simply, God is in the process of gathering a holy people, whichin effect means that God pursues a redemptive mission in our world.

Several people deserve our thanks for their help in this process. Our firstmeeting was made possible by a grant from Dr Stan Jones, Provost ofWheaton College. Stan is an excellent scholar in his own right, and he supportshis faculty members’ scholarly pursuits as well as anyone in the academy. Weare also grateful for the help and hospitality given us by the staff at HarborHouse at Wheaton College, the lovely venue where the meeting took place.

Our second meeting was supported by a grant approved by Dean TimothyGeorge of Beeson Divinity School. Like virtually everything else that occursat Beeson, this meeting was made possible by endowment funds provided byour benefactor, the late Ralph Waldo Beeson (–). Mr Beeson’s gen-erosity and Dean George’s faithful leadership, scholarship and churchmanshiphave combined to make Beeson Divinity School a unique place. ElizabethBaker made the arrangements for the meeting as part of her ongoing excellentsupport of Paul House’s work. She also painstakingly produced the final draftof the manuscript.

We owe special thanks to Dr Philip Duce, Theological Books Editor atInter-Varsity Press (UK), for accepting this project and seeing it through to itscompletion. Such books are hardly mega-sellers, so his patience, support andcommitment to this type of biblical analysis are much appreciated.

Most of all, we thank our wives, Debara Hafemann and Heather House, fortheir enthusiasm for this project. We thank them particularly for showing gra-cious hospitality during the two meetings. Their love and support for us andfor each other has served to strengthen our long-standing and uncommonfriendship, as well as our lives of study and teaching, out of which this work




was born. They also deserve thanks for keeping us on task by wondering,among other things, what the Bible is if not a unified expression of God’scharacter that expresses his redemptive and loving plan for us all. Heathermerits added thanks for donating hours of work spent copy-editing the manu-script.

Twenty years ago, when we were young teachers at Taylor University, ourchildren Eric Hafemann and Molly House used to play together. In July ,Eric was married to Lindsey Robison in California and Molly married MartinSpence in England. We rejoice that both couples know and serve the Lord.Now that we are no longer ‘promising young scholars’, it is a great comfort toknow that not even death can separate us from those we love most. We dedi-cate this book to Lindsey and Martin as a way of welcoming them to our fam-ilies and as an encouragement to search the Scriptures for transforming truth.

For these and other kindnesses we are very grateful.

Scott J. Hafemann, Gordon-Conwell Theological SeminaryPaul R. House, Beeson Divinity School

M631 - CENTRAL TEXT.qxd 21/12/06 2:47 PM Page 19 Gary Gary's G4:Users:Gary:Public:Gary's Jo



. THE COVENANT RELATIONSHIP

Scott J. Hafemann

At its most fundamental level, the subject matter of biblical theology is theBible’s understanding of God’s character and purposes. This ‘theology’ is dis-played in the developing relationship between God and his people (Israel andthe church) and, through them, in God’s relationship with the world (thenations and the created order). The primary matrix of God’s self-revelation istherefore not private religious experience, but the events recounted and inter-preted in the Scriptures that establish and maintain these relationships.1

. As James D. Smart, The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, ), pointed out, the nature of the link between ‘theology’ asGod’s self-revelation and ‘history’ as the discernible nexus of cause and effect isthe key question of Biblical Theology. Smart’s own answer, advocated by manytoday, was to follow Barth’s separation of theology from history by relocatingrevelation in the human experience of God reflected in the Scriptures (seepp. –). In contrast, the position taken here is that Scripture is not a record ofreligious beliefs or experiences in response to a divine revelation outside itself, butis itself divine revelation. In this regard, see the helpful distinction established byJohn S. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, A Canonical Approach (GrandRapids: Zondervan, ), pp. –, between God’s self-revelation in the Bibleand religion as a human act in accordance with that revelation. Sailhamer follows




History, not the heart, is the locus of divine revelation. Moreover, since bibli-cal history focuses on God’s rescue of humanity from its rebellion against itscreator and sustainer, it can be called the ‘history of redemption’ or ‘salvationhistory’. Thus God’s relationship with his people within the salvation historyrecounted in Scripture is the subject matter of ‘biblical theology’. To call it ‘the-ology’ is especially apropos in that the intention of biblical salvation history isunequivocally theocentric, being focused on God’s self-revelation of his right-eous character in and through his relationship with his people, the nations andthe world. Biblically speaking, the purpose of theology is doxology.2

This means that God’s relationship with the world and his people is not atheoretical abstraction, nor is it fundamentally a subjective experience. Rather,with salvation history as its framework, this relationship is expressed in anddefined by the interrelated covenants that exist throughout the history ofredemption. This leads to the apostle Paul being able to refer to the variouscovenants throughout Israel’s history (cf. Rom. :; Eph. :), as well as toreferences to the ‘old’ or ‘new’ covenant as the two epochs of salvation history.

Nevertheless, although all would agree that there are various individualcovenants throughout the Scriptures, it is significant that the term for covenantin the Old Testament (berît) never occurs in the plural when describing God’scovenants with Israel.3 Rather, the biblical writers refer either to a specificcovenant or to ‘the’ covenant between God and his people. This is because thecovenants of the Bible all embody the same fundamental covenant relation-ship. For this reason, ‘covenant’ is the biblical-theological concept used to

E. Hirsch in tracing the shift from a faith based on the Bible as revelation, to a faithbased on the Bible as a religious response to revelation, to the work of SigmundBaumgarten in the mid-eighteenth century.

. This conviction first came home to me through the teaching of John Piper ascrystallized in The Justification of God, An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans

:– (Grand Rapids: Baker, ), pp. –, in which he establishes that God’srighteousness ‘consists most basically in God’s unswerving commitment topreserve the honor of his name and display his glory’ in everything he does (p. ).See, e.g., Exod. :, ; Kgs :–; Ps. :–; :; :–, ; Isa. :–,–; :; :; Jer. :–; Ezek. :–; :–; Dan. :–; Rom.:–; Eph. :–.

. As Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula, An Exegetical and Theological Investigation

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ), pp. , , has pointed out, though James Barremphasized this point in , it has not been taken seriously enough insubsequent scholarship.




explain () the essential character of God as King or Sovereign Ruler, () theelection of a people under his rule who, as his ‘adopted’ children, live in depen-dence upon him, and () the corresponding nature of God’s bond with themas their ‘Sovereign Father’. The content of this covenant relationship is thussummarized in what has come to be known as the ‘covenant formula’, i.e., thatYHWH declares, ‘I will be God for you [� your God] and you shall be a peoplefor me [� my people],’4 a mutual belonging between God and Israel that even-tually encompasses the nations and consummates history (Ezek. :–;Zech. :; Rom. :; Rev. :).

This ‘covenant relationship’, in which the basic categories of kingship(Sovereign Ruler) and kinship (Father) are mutually interpretive,5 is not static.It is the dynamic, historical arena within which God reveals himself. As such,it provides the interpretive lens for understanding who God is, who his peopleare and how they relate to one another. Hence, as Rolf Rendtorff has observed,‘covenant’ is ‘the most comprehensive and the most theologically weighty termfor God’s attention to humans in the Hebrew Bible’.6 John Walton concludesthat it is the ‘single most important theological structure in the Old Testament’;indeed, ‘both the Old and New Testament weave their theology on the loomof history with the thread of the covenant’.7 The covenant relationship con-

. For an insightful treatment of this theme, see Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula. Seehis p. for this literal translation and pp. , , for his conclusion that thecovenant formula is ‘at once the unfolding and the endorsement of the . . .covenant’, and as such ‘the expression of the fundamental relationship betweenGod and Israel’. Rendtorff’s study is based on an analysis of the context andsignificance of the distribution of the three forms of the formula: (A) ‘I will beGod for you’; (B) ‘You shall be a people for me’; and (A) and (B) combined. For alisting of the passages according to these categories, see his pp. –.

. For the programmatic insight that the concept of ‘covenant’ in the Bible is basedin tribal and family ‘kinship’ relationships, which later become interpreted in termsof kingship, see F. M. Cross, ‘Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel’, in From Epic

to Canon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, ), pp. –.. Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible, A Theology of the Old Testament, Tools for

Biblical Study (Leiden: Deo Publishing, ), p. .. John H. Walton, Covenant, God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ),

p. . In accord with my emphasis, Walton’s thesis, p. , is that God’s sovereign plan isto be in relationship with the people whom he has created, but that people must knowGod to be in relationship with him. Therefore God has instituted ‘as a primary objectivea program of self-revelation . . . the mechanism that drives this program is the




sequently provides not only the content but also the context for understand-ing the revelation-in-relationship and the history-of-redemption within whichthe biblical narrative and theology unfold.8 Brevard Childs is right: a scrip-turally interpreted Heilsgeschichte and the notion of the covenant are the two keycategories for constructing a biblical theology.9

This does not mean that the ‘covenant relationship’ is the one, centraltheme of the Bible. The attempt to isolate such a theme has proved to be toospecific to gain a consensus or too general to be of explanatory power. Moreappropriately, the concept of the covenant relationship provides the structure

that serves to integrate the interrelated themes developed throughout thehistory of redemption delineated in the Scriptures.10 Like the hub and rim ofa wheel respectively, the old (establishment) and new (restoration and con-summation) covenants define and hold together the different ‘spokes’ ofdivine revelation manifested in the words and deeds of redemptive history. Inso doing, the covenant becomes the interpretive lens for seeing clearly the con-ceptual and historical unity of the Bible in the midst of its diversity.

The covenant concept of the Bible

In Walther Eichrodt shocked the scholarly world of his day, which empha-sized critical reconstructions and the disunity of the Old Testament, by arguing

covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God.’See his pp. , and esp. – for his fourteen key texts in support of this thesis.

. For the history of the debate surrounding this complex issue, see Robert W.Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament

Theology (Leiden: Deo Publishing, ).. Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on

the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), p. ; cf. p. .. James Barr’s conclusion concerning scholarship’s search for the centre of biblical

theology is instructive in this regard: ‘To sum up the question of the “centre,” itseems to me that the discussion of it has not been a vain waste of breath, as somehave thought, and that valuable results have emerged from it. It is not a matter ofreaching a definitive answer, but rather of weighing possibilities for the expressionof structure. Whether writers of Theologies define a “centre” or not, they will verylikely have to work with some idea of one (or more?), as a simple necessity for theorganization of their work’ (The Concept of Biblical Theology, An Old Testament

Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ], p. ).




Documents

Central themes in BiBliCal theology - Baker Publishing Group